Why do I teach my children. Why do children know so little about the origin of man "In the mists of time. Dinosaurs and other prehistoric inhabitants"

Human evolution is a theory of the origin of humans created by the English naturalist and traveler Charles Darwin. He claimed that the ancient came from. To confirm his theory, Darwin traveled a lot and tried to collect different ones.

It is important to emphasize here that evolution (from Latin evolutio - “deployment”), as a natural process of the development of wildlife, accompanied by a change in the genetic composition of populations, really takes place.

But regarding the emergence of life in general and the emergence of man in particular, evolution is rather scarce in scientific evidence. It is no coincidence that it is still considered just a hypothetical theory.

Some tend to believe in evolution, considering it the only reasonable explanation for the origin of modern people. Others completely reject evolution as an anti-scientific thing, and prefer to believe that man was created by the Creator without any intermediate options.

So far, neither side has been able to scientifically convince opponents that they are right, so we can confidently assume that both positions are based purely on faith. What do you think? Write about it in the comments.

But let's deal with the most common terms associated with the Darwinian idea.

australopithecines

Who are Australopithecus? This word can often be heard in pseudo-scientific conversations about human evolution.

Australopithecus (southern monkeys) are upright descendants of driopithecus that lived in the steppes about 4 million years ago. These were quite highly developed primates.

skillful man

It was from them that the most ancient species of people originated, whom scientists call Homo habilis - "handy man."

The authors of the theory of evolution believe that in appearance and structure a skilled man did not differ from anthropoid apes, but at the same time he already knew how to make primitive cutting and chopping tools from roughly processed pebbles.

Homo erectus

The fossil species of people Homo erectus (“upright man”), according to the theory of evolution, appeared in the East and already 1.6 million years ago spread widely across Europe and Asia.

Homo erectus was of medium height (up to 180 cm) and was distinguished by a straight gait.

Representatives of this species learned to make stone tools for labor and hunting, used animal skins as clothing, lived in caves, used fire and cooked food on it.

Neanderthals

Once upon a time, the Neanderthal man (Homo neanderthalensis) was considered the ancestor of modern man. This species, according to the theory of evolution, appeared about 200 thousand years ago, and ceased to exist 30 thousand years ago.

Neanderthals were hunters and had a powerful physique. However, their height did not exceed 170 centimeters. Scientists now believe that Neanderthals were most likely just a side branch of the evolutionary tree from which man originated.

Homo sapiens

Homo sapiens (in Latin - Homo sapiens) appeared, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, 100-160 thousand years ago. Homo sapiens built huts and huts, sometimes even living pits, the walls of which were sheathed with wood.

They skillfully used bows and arrows, spears and bone hooks for catching fish, and also built boats.

Homo sapiens was very fond of painting the body, decorating clothes and household items with drawings. It was Homo sapiens who created the human civilization that exists and develops to this day.

Stages of development of ancient man according to the theory of evolution

It should be said that this entire evolutionary chain of human origin is exclusively Darwin's theory, which still has no scientific evidence.

Cheri Fields

It was the summer of 2012. I had just started writing a book about children and creationism, when all of a sudden a well-known 'pundits' said in the media that it is impossible to be a scientist who does not believe in evolution. I couldn't wait to answer him and knew exactly who to interview. My brother was an engineer. He has been homeschooled since childhood. I just had to call him and collect the necessary evidence.

However, before dialing the number, my heart sank with fear: a few years ago, my brother chose the priorities and standards of this world, and not God.

What if he now believes in evolution? Anyway, I had to ask him. Predictably, he became a theistic evolutionist. My brother believed in Jesus as his Savior and in evolution as part of His creation. He cautiously hinted to me that his views did not change in college. It happened in his teens, after he read an interesting article in a popular science magazine.

Good intentions, but...

My parents started teaching us at home in 1982, but they had few good sources in their arsenal. We used the only program we knew and were quite happy.

I remember being told about Lamarck's acquired traits that no one else believes in and the inaccuracy of the moth story, but that was all the parents could tell us about evolution.

Later, we found a new program that included a lot of amazing medical and scientific facts, but it said nothing at all about Creation and evolution.

This was done intentionally. The idea was that the children would be taught the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that when they heard a lie, they could immediately recognize it. It sounded quite reasonable. But all too often this approach has been a disaster.

Many young people who grew up in Christian homes, where they were taught only those things that they were supposed to accept as the truth, subsequently easily accepted worldly things on faith.

The world knows how to package their ideas in an attractive, practical and bright package. Children who do not have the means to recognize and counter lies are in grave danger.

Now I myself teach my children at home. I know I can't always protect them from the tsunami of godless thinking and worldly assumptions. How can I prepare them for this onslaught? That's what I think. Hebrews 5:13-14 says: « Whoever feeds on milk is ignorant of the word of truth, because he is a child; solid food is characteristic of the perfect, in whom the senses are accustomed by skill to distinguish between good and evil» .

Our ability to recognize the truth is similar to our immune system's ability to recognize foreign invaders.

Just as we train our bodies, I train my children: I show them what they will face so they know how to neutralize the danger. This method slowly and carefully helps them build up the spiritual muscles that are necessary to discern good and evil.

When we educate children, we want them to know a lot more than evolutionists would like.

Of course, at 2-3 years old we do not teach our children about the features of the structure of feathered dinosaurs, but we study other programs filled with more subtle ideas that begin at a later age.

We are talking about it. When we educate children, we want them to know a lot more than evolutionists would like. If children know in advance the assumptions scientists make, they are less likely to take them at their word.

One of my sons is just now beginning to study the history of the world. We use textbooks that children are taught in all schools. When the textbook says that humans lived over 10,000 years ago, I quickly talk about the carbon dating method. The next time we see such a huge number in a textbook, I ask my son how scientists “know” that it was so long ago, and what the Bible says about it.

(By the way, when we read about how people could "invent" farming, metallurgy, music, etc., I like to refer to the opening chapters of Genesis. We don't have to guess how the world does it, but we trust a simple description history that God has preserved for us!)

freeimages.com/samlevan

Recently, my children and I started studying geography. On two pages of a textbook on the subject, a timeline of life was drawn, beginning with the "first cells." Here we stopped and went down into history much deeper. Evolutionists don't want to educate their children on such subtleties. We talked about Spontaneous Generation, renamed today to abiogenesis. We then discussed that the appearance of each new type of organism is based on the order in which they were buried.

My two older children are now studying anatomy and biology. This is a good time to introduce them to mutations, the only mechanism by which evolution "creates" new traits. And, of course, one cannot fail to mention natural selection.

Not a single textbook for children that I have ever seen explains why its authors believe in what they teach. They simply draw final conclusions as if they were hard facts. The same can be said for most adult material. In fact, in order to find the basis of scientific claims, we often have to turn to scientific articles and papers written specifically for scientists - dedicated people who reliably protect the fragile secrets of their assumptions.

The last topic we cover in our classes concerns the implications of evolutionary thinking for worldview. Like any other philosophy, evolutionism and creationism must answer basic questions about life:

Who am I?
Why am I here?
Where am I going?
What really matters in life?

The Bible is replete with answers to these questions. Evolutionists also have them, but they are usually not talked about much because these answers are not very attractive. Look at them:

Random collection of matter
There is no reason (or just to pass on your DNA, which doesn't make sense anyway)
Going nowhere
Nothing

It is hard to imagine a person who would choose the emptiness of naturalism, unless he is bound by sin and pride. Most Christian children have not sunk to that level—yet.

Does this guarantee that my children will hold fast to the Lord all their lives? No, but I'm not afraid for them. My job is to pray for them, live in dedication to Jesus, and invite them to join their Father and me in His kingdom.

No man can change the heart. This is the work of God. I want to give the Holy Spirit the tools to change my children.

“Even so, it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones perish.”(Matthew 18:14).

PS: Did you find that your children encountered the topic of evolution at school? The same principles can help here. Grab a textbook and study the next few chapters. Focus on the thinking behind your conclusions. Teach your children more than evolutionists would like. Finally, teach your children how to be witnesses in the world.

» PostNauka acquaints readers with the opinions of our experts on topical issues of society, education and science. In the new issue, we asked our authors to express their point of view on the main problems of teaching the theory of evolution in schools.

I had no experience teaching biology in high school, but, not knowing the process, I deal with the product, including first-year students. In my opinion, the theory of evolution is not taught in school at all. In general, is the phrase "evolutionary biology" in modern school courses? I do not know. We have successfully recruited schoolchildren, but they are all products of biological circles and/or "special" schools, and cannot be used to judge school education as a whole.

The theory of evolution should be the basis of the entire course of biology at school, its core from the very beginning of teaching the subject. It is necessary to pay attention to the amazing diversity of life and the mystery of its origin, gradually unraveled with varying success over hundreds of years. And only then, with an emphasis on evolutionary processes, to study the structure of the cell of plants and animals, the diversity of stamens and pistils, flagella, paws, ears, tails, other internal and external organs, landscapes, natural areas, flow and metabolism, life cycles, reproduction , mechanisms of variability and heredity. Evolutionary ideas should be the basis of the study of all biology. Moreover, the main mysteries, principles and mechanisms of evolution can be explained simply and easily, including the role of DNA, and in such a way that it does not remain just an abbreviation that every decent person should know. You can complete the course of school biology with the evolution of the theory of evolution, the origin of life.

It is also important at the very beginning to explain unobtrusively that we are also a product of biological evolution: we are arranged in the likeness of our smaller brothers, and not vice versa. Then it will be easier to explain the basic patterns of evolution. Maybe this is lobbyism, but the behavior of animals and humans is, it seems to me, an underestimated subject in school courses for studying and understanding evolution. And, importantly, attractive for any age.

Practice is also important, if not “live” in some laboratories (even this is a big deal), then at least computer or through films and excellent lectures for children available in special educational programs. And the game "Evolution" is an excellent educational product.

Of course, maybe everything is just so arranged, but it seems to me that it is not. By the first of September, a boy I knew suddenly remembered that he had to do practical work in biology during the summer. I went and bought two fish - one big, the other small, put them in jars and signed: “I fed this one all summer” and “I didn’t feed this one all summer.” Got five.

There are two main problems in teaching the theory of evolution at school. The first is Vertyanov's textbook, that is, an attempt to change biology into religion, which is harmful both for biology and religion. This textbook is not accepted in all schools, but it is widely distributed. The second problem - a common "disease" of all school programs - is incompleteness. But you can't do anything about it, because a school is a school.

What is written in the Bible, that is, the creation of the world in 6 days, does not fit into modern not only biology, but also geology, dantology, and so on. But since it is difficult to argue with physics, they argue with biology, and mainly on the question of whether a person originated from a monkey or not, this problem has remained since the time of Darwin. Naturally, the orthodox Orthodox religion does not accept this, although the orthodox Catholic religion accepted it a long time ago. The fact is that it is difficult to link with religion what we know about evolution - there is creation, there is development. Therefore, attacks, attempts to falsify biological facts, or at least interpret them from religious positions, do not stop.

There are not enough hours devoted to the theory of evolution in school, but today few hours are devoted to biology in general. And this is very bad.

Maria Mednikova

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Candidate of Biological Sciences, Leading Researcher at the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

I have never taught in a high school. But I have several years of experience teaching first-year students, future psychologists, including the experience of lecturing on evolutionary anthropology. Therefore, I can judge the degree of preparation of recent applicants, mainly Moscow schools.

First, of course, there is a huge gap between schools. Some of them are very well known, and the fate of their graduates is not worth worrying about. But the vast majority are other educational institutions. In the value system of our secondary education, biology is not the main subject. This is least of all to blame the teachers, who have a lot of workload, a lot of paperwork. But the results are visible.

Young people fill in the gaps in their knowledge not from the school course, but from other sources, where rather muddy samples float on the surface. Sometimes it was funny to listen to the students' answers regarding the details of the formation of humanity in the exams, but more and more it became sad. Among the most exotic and cute versions, I can rank the origin of man from a bear or from aliens.

You can often hear that school and even university textbooks are decades behind the current state of science. Say, write a good textbook and solve the problem. I'm afraid that this is not a solution, because in the most outdated textbooks there is neither about bears nor about aliens, but about Darwinism. Also, any textbook should be read. And if people aim to reject scientific knowledge as such, they simply won't do it.

I think it will be possible to radically improve the teaching of biology at school when we change the situation outside of it. When it becomes indecent for a doctor or TV presenter to utter phrases like “Do you really think that man really came from a monkey?” or "As is widely known, Darwin's theory has long been refuted (option: outdated) ...". So far, we are very far from it.

What can be done in a particular situation? Today, a school teacher, a university teacher has a special responsibility. Speaking of, one must be super professional, have new facts, not be boring and not formal. The role of personality in history is very great, and the teacher of the theory of evolution must be charismatic. Fortunately, we have such people in our country, and they are present in the media space. What we really need is a new age of enlightenment. We must not allow our country to fall into a neo-medieval impasse.

Alexander Markov

Doctor of Biology, Leading Researcher at the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, NES Professor, Head of the Department of Biological Evolution, Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University

I did not deal with first-year biology students, but this is not a sample for evaluating knowledge of the theory of evolution after school - they are preparing for admission and specially study additionally. But I work with first-year economists. In order not to bother, I just think that their level of knowledge in evolutionary biology is zero, which, in principle, is not far from reality, and we go through the entire program with them from the initial level. That is, in my opinion, the level of biological literacy that is inculcated in secondary school, if we do not take, of course, specialized classes of specialized schools, can be safely neglected, considered zero.

When you test students in the first classes to check the basic level, as a rule, you get a very large spread. From kids with a zero level, who know nothing at all in biology, to guys with a very good level, such as high school students who are interested in biology, read books, independently study topics of interest to them. But, of course, the low level of knowledge prevails. There are only a few children who know biology well.

It is not easy to understand the logic of the religious mind of modern Homo sapiens. Take for example the human races, large and small - all as they are: many-sided, multicolored and multilingual. To the question whether the Papuans, Japanese, Indians and Ethiopians descend from Adam and Eve in the same way as representatives of the Eurasian race, a religious-minded person, of course, not without hesitation, but still answers "yes". The following question in this logical vein, “how did it happen that the descendants of Adam and Eve are so unlike their ancestors and each other?”, already causes considerable difficulties, but with the help of additional leading questions, most believers capable of speculative = philosophical thinking, come to the following conclusions:

different races have acquired their own genetic characteristics that determine these visible external differences ( variability);

these features they undoubtedly pass on to their descendants ( heredity);

these differences have evolved in order to adapt to the environment of different populations ( natural selection) during human settlement on the planet ( insulation).

In parentheses, I outlined the basic concepts on which the theory of evolution of life on Earth is based. Thus, within the species Homo sapiens, obvious facts make people recognize at least the microevolution of man, as a result of which new races are formed. But if we admit that man is capable of evolving into races in such a short historical period, why the same conclusions are not extrapolated to other types of living organisms, and why does not the mind of a religious thinker comprehend that, being continuous, this evolution changed species before, changes now and will continue to change as long as life exists, which means that any microevolutions inevitably become macroevolutions, when individual isolated populations of one species change so much that they become new species?

I will try to explain the reasons for misunderstanding and rejection of the theory of evolution.

Just don't call it evolution! By doing this, you offend the feelings of that little one behind...

Let's start with the fact that the above arguments, in principle simple, at the high school level, unfortunately do not reach the majority of religious and non-religious inhabitants for the simple reason that their brain is not able to operate with the logic of a rational thinking fellow.

WHICH MONKEY SPECIES OF CURRENT EXISTING IS OUR NEAREST RELATIVE?

ANSWER: Chimpanzees.

EXPLANATION: According to the latest data, the genetic divergence of human and chimpanzee lineages occurred only about 5 million years ago, while the final divergence of both species at the population level (which always occurs after the genetic divergence) took place only 3-4 million years ago. The next most related are the gorilla and the orangutan. The common ancestor of humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees was the fossil Nakalipithecus, who lived 10 million years ago.

Evolutionary tree of hominids. The abscissa at the bottom shows millions of years.

HOW WE ARE GENETICALLY CLOSE TO CHIMPANS?

ANSWER: According to modern estimates, the common genome of chimpanzees and humans is up to 98%.

EXPLANATIONS: Despite the fact that the genome (set of genes) in humans and chimpanzees is almost the same, the latter, like all members of the hominid family other than Homo, have one more chromosome than humans. The fact is that in human ancestors, two chromosomes merged together. This is clearly seen in the figure: the 2nd human chromosome is similar to the 2nd chimpanzee chromosomes ( In each pair, on the left is a Homo sapiens chromosome, on the right is a chimpanzee).

Signs of connection of chromosomes are clearly visible. The human chromosome has vestigial centromeres. Usually, a chromosome has only one centromere, but there are remnants of another one on the long arm of the 2nd human chromosome. (Avarello R. et al, 1992). In addition, rudimentary telomeres are visible on the human chromosome. Usually, telomeres are located only at the ends of the chromosome, but sequences of telomeric nucleotides are also observed in the middle of the 2nd human chromosome. (Ijdo J. W. et al., 1991). Thus, the 2nd chromosome provides strong evidence of the evolutionary origin of humans and other great apes from a common ancestor. Read more.

WHY ARE PEOPLE SMART AND MONKEYS ARE NOT?

ANSWER: Because it is a delusion. The above species of higher primates are also intelligent, but their intelligence is lower compared to our species. The differences here are more quantitative than qualitative.

EXPLANATION: Gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees in their intellectual development reach approximately the level of 3-4 and sometimes even 6-year-old human child.

Chimpanzees on the main aspects of behavior are little different from humans. And the longer ethologists study these monkeys, the stronger this similarity is postulated.

Chimpanzees transmit traditions in the use of tools and behavioral skills, and these traditions differ in different populations of monkeys, that is, in fact, in the case of chimpanzees, we can talk about primitive cultures. Since the chimpanzee transitions from one group to another quite easily, cultural skills can be transferred from pack to pack, but they can also be lost if no member of the younger generation has learned them.

Their traditions spread to the field of communication. For example, the ways of greeting are different. There are even groups of chimpanzees in which the handshake is customary. Chimpanzees are very similar to humans in ways of expressing emotions. A gaze and a grin in monkeys, like in humans, means a threat, and a gentle touch and stroking means friendliness. Finally, they, like all other hominids, laugh, they have humor.

Chimpanzees are able to cooperate to hunt small animals - monkeys or pygmy antelopes.
Finally, they possess the most important sign of reason - the ability to use tools. All that fundamentally distinguishes them from humans is that chimpanzees are not able to use some tools to make others, i.e. they either use what they find or use their fingers and teeth to make tools.

It has been known for a very long time that monkeys, and not only anthropoids, are able to use, and under experimental conditions even manufacture the simplest tools, including stone ones. As early as 1843, the American missionaries Savage and Wyman, who worked in West Africa, reported that chimpanzees were seen doing such things as cracking nuts with stones. This fact was known to Charles Darwin, who himself observed monkeys using tools, but not in natural conditions, but in the London Zoo. At present, a huge amount of data on the tool activity of higher primates has been accumulated, and every decade their volume increases exponentially (read more). Someday I will share my personal observations of the labor behavior of chimpanzees in the Tay National Park in Côte d'Ivoire, which I visited last spring.

WHY DON'T THE MONKEYS TALK?

ANSWER: Due to the peculiarities of the structure of the larynx.

EXPLANATIONS: While other hominids cannot articulate, they a) understand speech, b) are able to communicate in sign language in a manner similar to that of deaf and dumb humans.

By "understand speech" I'm not talking about the understanding of dogs, but about the most intelligent perception of speech.

A gorilla named Koko understands more than 2,000 English words by ear and actively communicates with sign language of the deaf and dumb (about 1,500 sign words). More details.

For those interested in the details of the origin of the language, I strongly recommend Svetlana Burlak's book “The Origin of Language. Facts, research, hypotheses.

WHY ARE THE MONKEYS STILL NOT BECOME HUMAN?

ANSWER: Because they didn't want to.

EXPLANATION: Why didn't all rats become beavers, and why didn't all fish land? The answer is clear - "they are so good." So those monkeys that still live in the forests are well in their habitat and they are perfectly adapted to this environment. They have been well there for millions of years and they have not experienced any evolutionary need to become someone else. But the forests are “not rubber”, and there were climatic periods of natural deforestation, and therefore “renegade” monkeys appeared, who were forced to develop the African savannah. They became us.

It would not be superfluous to emphasize that all modern species of monkeys also evolved like us, but not in the direction of increasing intelligence and walking upright, but where it was beneficial for them to survive in the forests. However, some species (for example, baboons) began to explore the savanna, which even brought them - monkeys - closer to hominids in a number of behavioral indicators. I will say more: in a number of ways, modern apes are more different from ancient apes than humans, so they evolved no slower than us.

WHAT DIFFERENTIATES HUMANS FROM OTHER PRIMATES IN BODY STRUCTURE?

ANSWER: It is impossible to find a morphological criterion for distinguishing highly developed fossil humanoid upright primates who systematically used various natural objects as tools (Australopithecines) from those who made the first artificial tools and thereby became the first people.

Compared to other living hominids, humans differ most significantly in the following:

upright posture;

a brush adapted for the manufacture of tools;

highly developed brain;

small fangs that do not protrude beyond the line of other teeth.

HOW LONG TIME DID MAN DIVIDE INTO RACES?

ANSWER: The exit of Homo sapiens from Africa, which led to the emergence of isolated populations living in different ecological conditions, and therefore to the emergence of all other races except the Negroid, according to all data, was originally carried out by a small group of people from East Africa, most likely by ancient Negroids or ancestors of the East African race.

Geneticists usually date this outing to 80 thousand years ago; paleoanthropological and archaeological finds indicate a reliable appearance of sapiens outside Africa from 46 to 63 thousand years ago (Demeter et al., 2012). Thus, all extra-African races have been formed in the last four or five tens of thousands of years. According to the genetic clade, the Bushmen were the first to separate from the common trunk, followed by the Pygmies, then the Mandinka, then the Papuans, and, finally, the lines of Caucasoids and Mongoloids dispersed (Nature, July 3, 2013)

For those interested in the details of race studies, I recommend a fresh monograph by a young, but very advanced anthropologist, Stanislav Drobyshevsky, "The Origin of Human Races."

HOW BIG IS THE INTELLECTUAL RACIAL DIFFERENCE?

EXPLANATIONS: To begin with, measuring the level of intelligence is not so easy. Methods for determining IQ are guided by the assessment of mathematical skills (counting, remembering numbers, abstract geometric thinking), i.e. we are talking here not only about the quality of the mind, but also about education. Therefore, these methods are hardly applicable to peoples where most of the population is illiterate. Does this mean that the intelligence of these people is lower than German or Japanese? Not!

Intelligence is still an applied thing. The most concise and meaningful definition of intelligence sounds like this: it is the ability to set an adaptogenic goal and achieve it. If a villager in Lesotho does not need developed abstract mathematical thinking to adapt to the local conditions of survival, there is no point in measuring it. He occupies his brain with other essential things that the mathematicians of Europe do not bother to attend to: how to grow crops and cattle, how to build a house, etc. When communicating with the "savages", I marvel at their deep knowledge of the life of the surrounding nature: their memory is overflowing with information about the properties of poisonous creatures, edible and medicinal herbs, about the habits of prey or diseases of livestock, they are able to do a lot with their own hands. In our society, all this information is distributed through the brains of narrow specialists, but in the conditions of subsistence farming and gathering, a lot has to be kept in one's own head.

In addition, intelligence is determined not only by the innate qualities of the brain, but also by its development. A computer, no matter how sophisticated its hardware, will not work without software, i.e. without complicated programs. In the same way, in a person, innate intelligence can be realized only with proper training. Knowledge and skills, alas, are not transmitted genetically, so from generation to generation everyone has to be re-taught and educated.

At the same time, it should be taken into account that the success of education depends not only on the teaching methods and the quality of the information introduced into the child's brain. Much is determined by the learning ability of the subject, which is determined both by his innate talents and inclinations, and by the general somatic state of the body, which in turn can also be innate (the levels of hormones that affect perseverance and orientation of interests, and receptors for them on target cells) , and acquired (lack of protein or iodine in food, for example, can lead to underdevelopment of the brain, and neuroinfections or alcohol can ruin even a genius).

That. very, very much is determined in a person not only by innate qualities, but also by the environment in which his intellect develops (especially up to 7-8 years).

As for the innate properties of the brain, it is impossible to deny the absence of any differences between races, because they exist. We see this in the representatives of different races brought up in the same multinational community. However, these differences should not be exaggerated, let alone assessed as more or less intellectual. If the representatives of the black race are more inclined to perceive jazz music, this does not mean that jazz is more primitive than Chinese folk music or Bach's oratorios. Many innate intellectual differences can be assessed as cultural nuances, as an evolutionary adjustment of certain inclinations of the representatives of the races to the requirements of the environment in which these races were formed. The thinking of representatives of different races has its own innate characteristics, just as they differ physically, but it is not correct to say that some races are smarter, while others are dumber, that some are more beautiful, while others are more fearsome, that the physique of some is more perfect , and others - nature has made flawed.

One often hears counterarguments on the example of the United States - here, they say, a long time ago African Americans and Chinese migrants cohabit with representatives of the Eurasian race, but the indicators for school or university performance in mixed classes are very different - Asians traditionally rule, and the Negroid race trails behind. But even here much is exaggerated due to insufficient analysis of all factors. For example, let's compare Chinese students at Ivy League universities and at the Moscow PFUR - earth and sky! Obviously, the point here is not in the racial characteristics of the intellect, but in the individual selection of students traveling to one country or another. Rich honors students who have already acquired a good education in their homeland go to the States, and the rest come to us.

Let's not discount the slave-owning selection of African Americans. By artificial selection in just 10,000 years, the smartest poodles and bull terriers with Pekingese were made from a wolf - all these are essentially different races = breeds of the same species. What were the opportunities for intellectual development among blacks in the middle of the last century?! Meanwhile, there is data according to which the same IQ in the United States over the 20th century increased both among Caucasians and Negroids. In the first half of the 20th century, Caucasians had about the same IQ as Negroids now, then it grew. It is also interesting that the IQ growth rate among Negroids is significantly higher than that of Caucasians, because the life of whites has not become particularly complicated over the years, but the Negroes were simply forced to respond to the challenge of a “civilized environment”. Let's also take into account that to this day in the United States there is significant racial segregation by habitat - Negroids live in some quarters, Asians in others, whites in the third. So there is no need to talk about the uniform influence of the environment on the development of the intellect of representatives of different races in the United States.

Whites tend by default to consider themselves either God's chosen or the most intelligent race, but this happens more often due to our narrow mind. The white "philistine" has no idea about the achievements of Africans of the Stone Age, the ancient Egyptian, Sumerian and Indus civilizations, the Bronze Age of Vietnam, the Inca and Aztec empires. Few have an idea about the darkness of the early Iron Age of Northern Europe against the background of the simultaneous cultural flourishing of southern civilizations.

From this we conclude that we need to learn ourselves and pass on the knowledge and skills of our ancestors to our children. Then everything will be in order with the intellectual level of one's own nation, and the morphological and cultural evolution of other races and peoples will be perceived adequately.
_____________________________________

In preparing this post, I actively used the materials published on the website http://antropogenez.ru. Additionally, I recommend the scientific site "Evidence of evolution". Read for yourself and retell to your children!

Marveling at the beauty and diversity of the world around us, people have been wondering for centuries: how it appeared, how the planets formed, how life originated, why earthly life is based on carbon and uses four types of links in DNA, and in the end how it arose from cosmic dust the same, the first, living cell?

Of course, all these questions excite young minds. Now, perhaps, there is not a single first-grader who would not be interested in the theme of the emergence of the world and man. Moreover, even preschool children ask similar questions. Naturally, publishers cannot ignore their interest. And today in the children's literature market there are many high-quality children's books on such topics as: "The Origin of the Earth", "Human Evolution" and "The Origin of Life".

It is about them that we will talk today.

"History of life. My first book about evolution"

The book is fully consistent with its title, it is really an introductory course into the wonderful and so bewitching world of nature and evolution. With a childish approach, it tells the story of how life developed on our planet. A period of more than 4 billion years is described, the beginning of which is chaos, volcanic ash and hot lava, and the result is the birth of something very amazing and so necessary for all of us.

Strikingly light, logical text that transforms into independent thoughts. Everything is laid out on the shelves, it is clear what follows from what and why one is replaced by another. Despite the fact that a huge piece of history is covered, after reading the whole process will inevitably become clear.

In addition to the content, I want to draw your attention to the design of the book. It's really a child's play. The manner of narration, presentation, illustrations - everything is designed for children of senior preschool and primary school age. In addition, the book will be of interest to younger readers, who will be able to look at the colorful illustrations and for the first time think about how the world around them came into being.

Age: 4+

More

"History of life. From the primordial broth to the present day"

A Brief History of the Universe. Just think of a brief-history-of-the-universe! That is, the history of our planet is a little over 13.5 billion years long, from the time of the Big Bang to the present day.

The narrative of the book begins with the distant Catarchean, a period that lasted about half a billion years and began about 4.5 billion years ago.

It was then that the formation of a solid earth's surface, similar to what we observe today, occurs. Also during this period, the atmosphere and hydrosphere are formed.

Further Archaea - the origin of life; Ediacaran - the first algae and animals; The Cambrian period is the era of trilobites; Ordovician period - the first plants, jellyfish, sponges and echinoderms; Silurian period - landfall, development of coral species; Devonian period - a layer of fertile soil, the first sharks and amphibians; Carboniferous period - the first reptiles; Permian period - fish and ammonites, pangolins; Triassic period - the first dinosaurs, the division of Pangea and the mass extinctions of amphibians; Jurassic - the era of giants and the first mammals; Cretaceous - further division of Gondwana, first flowers, insects and birds; Eocene - division of Laurasia, adaptation to a new climate; Pleistocene - a sharp cooling, ice age, mammoths and saber-toothed cats; The Holocene is the modern period, covering the period from 11,700 years ago to the present day.

In addition to periodicals and stages of development and formation of life on earth, the reader will learn from this book: why the ancient centipede grew up to a meter long, how fast the tyrannosaurus ran, what is common between a whale and a deer or a crow and a dinosaur, what is oil, who are Australopithecus, why does a plant need flowers and fruits, and about other interesting facts described in the footnotes "curious monkey"

Age: 5+

More

"From Tyrannosaurus Rex to Rooster! The Big Book of Animal Evolution"

I will make a reservation right away that "From a tyrannosaurus rex to a rooster" is not a book about "dinosaurs". This is their parents, who know a little more about prehistoric animals than just their names. Here, the process of evolution lasting several million years is considered, and its course is analyzed using the example of several animal species.

Whether it is a huge tyrannosaurus rex (the largest of the theropods), which somehow magically turned into a poultry, a meganeura with a wingspan of 65 cm and devouring everyone and everything, but becoming a completely harmless (at least for humans) dragonfly, or dorudon (he is also a modern whale), which lost all its teeth, but retained its fins and impressive size, after some 100-150 million years!

I would also like to note the sections from the book devoted to the comparison of "those" and "these", for example, comparative drawings of Archeopteryx and a modern rooster (yes, the one that is the closest relative of the tyrannosaurus rex). Or here's another - explaining why and why the horse lost its fingers, instead receiving no less useful hooves. Or how it happened that although ostriches are birds, they do not know how to fly ... It seems to me that it is very informative, and not only for children.

Age: 6+

More

"In the darkness of time. Dinosaurs and other prehistoric inhabitants"

The author of the book, Sergey Yuryevich Afonkin, together with his wife Elena Yuryevna, published several dozen books and brochures, mainly about nature and man.

As for this book, it included a maximum of necessary information. There are no bare facts and figures here. But there is consistency and the ability to convey the meaning to young readers.

Andreev's illustrations amaze the imagination. Here the artist's imagination was clearly unlimited. After all, until now, no one knows exactly how these toothy and winged lizards looked like.

The book includes several sections. The reader is first met by an enchanting introduction, after which you can no longer stop and, drugged by what you hear, you read on, swallowing the information like ... a dinosaur. Instead of a conclusion - a geochronological scale: from Archean to Cenozoic. Which, oddly enough, is not so common in such books. But this is the foundation of the foundations.

Age: 6+

More

"The Origin of Life" and "The Origin of Man" (School Guides)

From these books, young readers will learn about existing hypotheses and assumptions, about theories and facts related to the emergence of life on planet Earth, about distant human relatives who lived on it many thousands of years ago.

Books from the "Know the World" series will help preschoolers and primary schoolchildren understand not only the origin of life and man, but will also allow them to better understand and imagine what the first forms of life were like, how they lived their short life, and what they did...

Age: 6+
More and

"The Riddle of Life and the Dirty Socks of Jos Grotjes of Dril"

What are the seashells doing on the top of the mountain? Why did the giant deer become extinct? Why are women getting more beautiful and men not? Why do some animals want to die? How to become a quadruped from a fish? Why do we write in fossils at school? How to find an amphibian, or fish phobia? Finally, what does dirty socks have to do with it?

The well-known Dutch popularizer of science, Jan Paul Schütten, does not leave any of these questions unanswered. Answering them, he talks about the most difficult things in an accessible way. For example, about how the Universe came into being, what the Big Bang is, how life began on Earth, and even what aliens will look like when we finally find them. He is assisted by the witty and ironic artist Floor Ryder, whose drawings perfectly complement this exciting story.

Age: 12+
More

"Imprints of life. 25 steps of evolution and the whole history of the planet"

Best-selling author, paleontologist Donald Protheroe, has turned the scientific description of twenty-five famous, well-preserved fossils into a fascinating one. The twenty-five fossils discussed in this book demonstrate life in all its evolutionary splendor, showing how one species evolves into another.

We will see the whole variety of extinct plants and animals - from microscopic to gigantic sizes. We will read about fantastic land and sea creatures that have no analogues in modern nature: the first trilobites, giant sharks, huge marine reptiles and feathered dinosaurs, the first birds, walking whales, giant hornless rhinoceros and Lucy the Australopithecus.

Age: 12+

More

"Pulling Link. Book One. Monkeys and All-All-All" and "Pulling Link. Book Two. People"

The theory of human evolution is called anthropogenesis. It is to her that the books of the biologist and popularizer of science Stanislav Drobyshevsky are dedicated. By the titles of the volumes - "Monkeys and All-All-All" and "People" it immediately becomes clear who the main characters are in them.

The beauty of sci-fi is that it is written for inexperienced readers. The author of this book very quickly manages to bring the unprepared up to date and, largely thanks to the easy and metaphorical language, constantly maintains an interest in reading. Especially abstruse places can be skipped, then there will even be time to sleep.

Sergei Kumysh, in an article on Posta Magazine, compared The Retrieving Link with The Lord of the Rings in terms of volume and fascination, assigning not the last place to hobbits in Drobyshevsky's book - a very high assessment of the book's artistic merits.

Age: 12+
More

"Question of Life"

The author of the book is Nick Lane, an English biochemist and researcher in the Department of Genetics, Evolution and the Environment at University College London.

Billions of years ago, during the Hadean period, our planet lived a normal life for a relatively recently appeared celestial body. It was a relatively calm water world with rare islands, and not a fiery hell with constantly erupting volcanoes, as artists like to portray.

And suddenly something happened that radically changed the entire further history of the planet. It had life. What was it: a random coincidence of a million different factors or the inevitable course of events? What was the first cell? How did it change, develop, become more complex, and how, as a result, did all the variety of living organisms that we can observe around us arise: from humans and plants, to bacteria and viruses? What secrets does our DNA hold? Why do genetic diseases appear? Are we alone in the universe? Nick Lane offers a revolutionary and completely unexpected look at the origin of life.

Age: 14+

More

Cover photo: